Minor stuff from my POV:
[22:08]
<MarkK> wayne: 'softfail' is the result of a policy decision;
PermError is really a permant type of error, that really
should be met with 5.x.x codes.
+1 (but see below)
[22:11]
<MarkK> currently I think implementation send 5.x.x codes on
PermErrors
+2 (it's just the idea of Wayne's "validating implementation")
[22:34]
| <Julian> "None" means something completely different than
SPF(nonsense-of-some-sort) should mean.
-1 (NONE means "found no sender policy for whatever.example")
[22:45]
<grumpy> Whee!
Drum roll, "NOT RECOMMENDED" stands. IMNSHO this limits the
folks with the right to discuss it any further to the IESG.
[23:12]
<Julian> "will [...] shoot it down"? Does that mean everyone
in the IETF has veto powers?
No, it's almost the same idea as SPF Community vs. SPF Council.
{23:14]
<Julian> Motion: The SPFv1 specification shall long for IETF
Proposed Standard status.
[...]
[23:16]
<Julian> Weee!
"Keine Atempause, Geschichte wird gemacht, es geht voran," ;->
<http://purl.net/net/de2en/fehlfarben.lyrics-online.net/EinJahr.html>
{23:20]
<csm> I dunno what the issue is... can somebody give me the 10
cent version?
Screwing up v=spf1 beyond repair. You owe me 10 Euro cents.
[23:23]
<MarkK> The point is rather moot, I think, as NXDOMAIN in
MAIL FROM is likely already weeded out by the MTA
before SPF gets a o at it
+3 (but see below, don't forget literals, localhost, etc.)
[23:26]
<csm> but a PermError when there is no such domain?
<csm> come on...
+1 (soon to get all of Mark's bases)
[23:26]
<MarkK> I can find a rationale for PermError; but I can live
with 'none'
-0 (Mark's bases ready to be trasferred...)
[22:32]
<Julian> Re PermError: usually it does NOT mean "let it pass".
I doubt that many receivers do not reject on
"PermError".
<Julian> Especially since PermError has long been
recommending exactly that, a 5xx SMTP reply code.
Especially since PermError generally means "SPF policy FUBAR"
and not "I hate domain literals" or "WTF is mybox.apple.local"
[23:34]
<MarkK> grumpy: I think the vast majory will reject with 5.x
errors
That might be STD 10 / 2821, but not "SENDER policy framework".
[23:38]
<grumpy> 2338:u no
<Julian> 2337u: yes
<csm> 2337u: no
<MarkK> 2338u: yes
<csm> muahahahahahaha
TILT. MarkK tilted the Council flipper. In theory you're
supposed to reflect the Community will, not to play flipper.
[23:41]
<csm> an error is a broken record...
Of course it is. All of Mark's bases transferred to Chuck.
10 Euro cents debt cancelled.
[23:44]
<grumpy> "sign", however, is a bad name
Still the best idea after "prefix" was sent to lala-land.
[23:46]
<Julian> Anything that's semantically descriptive is fine
with me. That includes "result" and "match-result",
although the latter is not very elegant.
While "result" is elegant, it's a term in the Receive-SPF ABNF
with values like "Pass", "Fail", etc., but not "+", "-", etc.
Overloading terms in a spec. is an odd idea, stick to "sign",
or try "result-prefix" <shudder />
Bye, Frank